Where I seek to secure my reliable information I have never seen Europe or the EU described as the "enemy". Then again I do not trawl unreliable sources.
No one is... The salient point is that a referendum in the UK can't be legally binding* - not that it shouldn't be upheld. They are clearly 2 completely different things. *And the bigger point missed by the unwilling to think is that the reason it can't be legally binding is that Parliament is Sovereign - the very thing that Brexiteers claim that they want to 'return to' is alive and well and they don't even understand the beginnings of what it means. 'Sovereignty' is just a soundbite to them - a handy hook to hold their xenophobia on. So as a democrat - why would you lose sight of the core of our Parliamentary democracy because the media and a bunch of self serving imbeciles seek to overrule the law of the land to make a quick buck?
Joe Average is not bothered in the slightest - nor should he be - as to whether the referendum is not "legally binding" because of the sovereignty of Parliament. He's bothered that the result of the referendum should be upheld - or at least it seems to me that he ought to be. As a democrat I seem to remember that our parliament agreed to the people voting in a referendum, and then agreed subsequently to vote to implement the result. As they should. The rest of your final sentence simply exposes your prejudices and explains why you seek to subvert democracy. That is your choice.
Well you're reading it wrong - again. in no way have I suggested that Parliament should choose to override the result of the referendum. I believe I started my last post with the same sentiment. But nor do I approve of JRM and his mates making millions by hedging bets on my kids losing their homes - and my biggest problem with that scenario is that when that happens - your average Joe will still be blaming the EU for the negotiations breaking down. BTW my real point is that it's a sad day when average Joe doesn't want to understand what democracy actually means - that he can be conned into believing things that are not true because that suits the agenda of some utter crooks. We're in a bad way indeed when democracy can so easily be subverted so some rich people can make even more money whilst the rest of us live in ever increasing poverty. Democracy should mean that power is never for sale - and we've witnessing the end of it, not because of 'remoaners' but because a small number of very rich people have managed to turn a vote to loosen our relationship with Europe into a vote to crash the economy.
That post is just a bellyache against the repercussions of a referendum result that - for good or ill - we all must be stuck with. To an extent I sympathize. Or even empathize. But the principle of democracy is far more important to us. Without that, we are lost.
You just keep believing what you think I posted rather than actually reading it eh? And again - you seem to really not understand what a Parliamentary democracy is. You think calling yourself a democrat means you get to pick and choose the rules - sorry old feller - it really doesn't.
Y know the really sad thing is I was totally convinced I would just roll with the Leave vote after all it was what we voted for. Until I heard some utter ******* idiot declare that 'a second referendum would be undemocratic' - Yes apparently one vote is democratic - but 2 isn't! At that point I realised that some people will reiterate whatever ****** the Daily Mail feeds them without giving it a first (let alone second) thought
What you've been doing to me since your first response. You still haven't read any of them have you edit to add - I didn't - I just told you that democracy is what we have and you are suggesting that a referendum is more important than that - which is unconstitutional and just completely incorrect.
The only people pushing for the second referendum are those who don't like the result, and don't respect the result of the actual referendum and will use any tactic to overturn it.
The game is totally up. The other parties won't have Corbyn - even as an interim PM. Corbyn and his SC won't have anyone else but him. Meanwhile, it's an easy ride for Boris and his no deal Brexit. Let's face it, the brexiteers were better organised for the referendum (even if that involved many 'post-truth' statements) and they're better organised now, having gotten their man in. There is no means to stop no deal. Whether it screws up the country - we shall see.
Well it's obvious who would want a 2nd referendum - you don't get a prize for that. The point of departure is using the word 'respect'; the current trajectory for the country post Brexit is dire - and anyone who is desperately trying to stop that happening shouldn't be seen as an 'enemy of the people' 'traitor' 'undemocratic' or any of the other labels being shouted by the Brexiteers to force their agenda through. What benefits of Brexit do you see that make decades of economic turmoil a price worth paying?
I don't see any advantages in no deal lets be clear. But as to the wider question of leaving the EU with a deal, not everyone predicts impending disaster....Jeremy Corbyn for instance..his speech at Coventry last year. "The European Union is not the root of all our problems and leaving it will not solve all our problems. Likewise, the EU is not the source of all enlightenment and leaving it does not inevitably spell doom for our country. There will be some who will tell you that Brexit is a disaster for this country and some who will tell you that Brexit will create a land of milk and honey. The truth is more down to earth and it’s in our hands. Brexit is what we make of it together, the priorities and choices we make in the negotiations."
The whole Brexit thing is intriguingly amazing and frightening in equal measures. Personally my take is the referendum is not legally binding, however it was made clear at the outset the result would be honoured. From a legal perspective to maintain our processes it has to go through Parliament. The mistake like a lot of things was this was not made clear at the outset. The more worrying aspect for me over this is the turmoil it is causing to ‘the people’ it is almost the only subject when discussed is almost guaranteed to result in abuse or name calling. Economic issues come and go but there is a real danger this subject could do unrepairable damage to society that will go on for decades longer than any economic issues. In my opinion it needs a second vote to avoid this issue BUT with some caveats: A cross party group put together to put out agreed knowns of impact etc in simple English for Joe to understand. Then a vote and which ever way it goes is then honoured.